Sites like Rollbit, judged on what each one publishes
Ten crypto casinos set against Rollbit on six things a contract can be read for: licence, cashier, studios, verification, withdrawal ceiling and founding year.
Written by Emerson Pike/Read 2026-08-28
Rollbit is a crypto casino with its own in-house games, a sportsbook, and a set of trading-style products around them. Whether another site is like it therefore depends entirely on which part of it you mean, and most pages answering this question quietly choose the part that flatters their list. This one takes a narrower question that can actually be settled: of the sites in the same market, which ones publish enough about themselves that a comparison is possible at all?
That question turned out to be the interesting one. Across the forty-two brands in this register, twenty-three publish a cashier list we could read, twenty-three publish a studio list, five publish a numeric verification threshold, eight publish a maximum withdrawal, and ten publish the year they started. The rest of each record is not zero — it is blank, which is a different and much less comfortable thing. The ten fullest of those records are set side by side on the Rollbit alternatives page, and the licensing side of the same forty-two is on casinos like Rollbit.
The ten below are the fullest records in the set. That is the only criterion, and it is not a verdict on any of them: a brand can publish a great deal and still not suit you, and a brand can publish very little and be perfectly sound. What a full record buys you is the ability to check before you commit, which is the whole premise of this site.
The ten, ordered by how much each one publishes
| # | Site | Licensed by | Licence no. | Coins | Studios | Verification | Evidence | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Wild.io | Curaçao Gaming Authority | OGL/2024/210/0198 | 12 | 80 | At discretion | 9.0/10 | Visit |
| 2 | Bitcasino.io | Curaçao Gaming Authority | OGL/2023/111/0069 | not published | 120 | EUR 2,500 | 8.8/10 | Visit |
| 3 | Empire.io | Anjouan Gaming Board | ALSI-132405042-FI3 | not published | 79 | USDT 2,000 | 8.8/10 | Visit |
| 4 | Sportsbet.io | Curaçao Gaming Authority | OGL/2023/110/0072 | not published | 110 | EUR 2,500 | 8.8/10 | Visit |
| 5 | CryptoLeo | Curaçao Gaming Authority | OGL/2024/1267/0760 | 7 | 13 | At discretion | 8.5/10 | Visit |
| 6 | Playbet.io | Curaçao Gaming Authority | OGL/2024/1214/0712 | 3 | 79 | At discretion | 8.5/10 | Visit |
| 7 | Rocketpot | Curacao | 1668/JAZ | 13 | not published | USD 2,500 | 7.5/10 | Visit |
| 8 | Flush | Anjouan Gaming Board | ALSI-202509008-FI1 | 9 | 85 | not published | 6.3/10 | Visit |
| 9 | LTC Casino | Curaçao eGaming | 8048/JAZ | 10 | 42 | At discretion | 6.3/10 | Visit |
| 10 | TrustDice | Curaçao Gaming Authority | OGL/2024/664/0280 | 9 | 43 | not published | 6.3/10 | Visit |
Read from each operator’s own terms and licence record. A blank means the document does not state it, or we have not read it — never that the answer is nil. Ordering is by how much an operator publishes and can be checked, on a fixed ten-point scale, so a brand that publishes little cannot rise by having fewer fields counted. The placement above the table is commercial and does not affect it.
What Rollbit itself puts in writing
Everything attributed to Rollbit here comes from one document: its Terms and Conditions of Service, revision dated 31 January 2025, read on 28 August 2026. Nothing comes from crawling the site — it does not answer an automated request, it returned a challenge page to a rendered fetch from a server, and it did not open in an ordinary browser from here either. No attempt was made to get around that, so where the terms are silent this page says silent rather than guessing.
The document is precise about the things a contract cares about and silent on most of what a comparison table wants. It names the operating company, Bull Gaming N.V., company number 157086, incorporated in Curaçao at Zuikertuintjeweg Z/N. It names a licence, OGL/2024/1260/0494, and calls it valid — the operator's own word about itself. It carries a restricted-territory clause with twenty-nine entries. And it sets out conditions for withdrawal that are entirely discretionary rather than numeric.
What the terms do not carry: a coin list, a studio list, a founding year, a numeric verification threshold and a maximum withdrawal. Five of the six columns in the table below are therefore blank for the subject of the page. That is not an accusation; plenty of operators keep those facts off the legal document and on a help page instead. It does mean that a reader who wants those five facts about Rollbit has nowhere in its own contract to find them.
| Field | What the document says |
|---|---|
| Operating company | Bull Gaming N.V., company number 157086, Curaçao |
| Licence | Curaçao OGL/2024/1260/0494, described in the terms as valid |
| Register result | Unresolved — see the licence page for why |
| Coins accepted | Not stated in the terms |
| Game studios | Not stated in the terms |
| Verification threshold | None — checks are completed to the operator's satisfaction |
| Maximum withdrawal | Not published |
| Founded | Not stated |
Terms and Conditions of Service, revision 31 January 2025, read 2026-08-28. A blank means the document does not state it, never that the answer is nil.
The ten, on the six fields that can be checked
Read this table for its gaps as much as for its figures. Bitcasino.io publishes a hundred and twenty studios and a verification threshold and a weekly ceiling, and no cashier list we have found. Rocketpot publishes thirteen coins and a threshold and a ceiling and a founding year, and no studio list. LTC Casino publishes ten coins and forty-two studios and nothing at all about limits.
None of that ranks them against each other on quality, because none of it is about quality. It is about how much of the relationship is written down before you open an account, which is the one thing you can establish from the outside.
| Brand | Licence | Coins | Studios | Verification | Max withdrawal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wild.io | Curaçao OGL/2024/210/0198 | 12 | 80 | Wording only | 100,000 per week |
| Rocketpot | Curaçao 1668/JAZ | 13 | Not published | 2,500 USD | 5,000 per month |
| Bitcasino.io | Curaçao OGL/2023/111/0069 | Not published | 120 | 2,500 EUR | 1,000,000 per week |
| CryptoLeo | Curaçao OGL/2024/1267/0760 | 7 | 13 | Wording only | 50,000 per month |
| Sportsbet.io | Curaçao OGL/2023/110/0072 | Not published | 110 | 2,500 EUR | Not published |
| Flush | Anjouan ALSI-202509008-FI1 | 9 | 85 | Wording only | Not published |
| Playbet.io | Curaçao OGL/2024/1214/0712 | 3 | 79 | Wording only | Not published |
| Empire.io | Anjouan ALSI-132405042-FI3 | Not published | 79 | 2,000 USDT | Not published |
| TrustDice | Curaçao OGL/2024/664/0280 | 9 | 43 | Wording only | Not published |
| LTC Casino | Curaçao eGaming 8048/JAZ | 10 | 42 | Wording only | Not published |
| Rollbit (the subject) | Curaçao OGL/2024/1260/0494 | Not published | Not published | Wording only | Not published |
Each operator's own terms, cashier page or licence-register entry, read 2026-08-26 to 2026-08-28. "Wording only" means the document describes verification but states no figure.
The one column where these sites genuinely differ from Rollbit
Five of the ten publish something Rollbit does not: a number at which the relationship changes. Rocketpot names 2,500 USD, Bitcasino.io and Sportsbet.io name 2,500 EUR, Empire.io names 2,000 USDT, and Livecasino.io — outside the ten, in the wider register — names 2,500 EUR as well. Rollbit's terms name no figure at all; withdrawal follows once identity and anti-money-laundering checks are completed to the operator's satisfaction.
A published number is not a promise of an easier life. It is a commitment that can be pointed at later, and a discretionary standard is not. That is the difference, and it is worth exactly as much as an operator's willingness to honour its own written word — which nothing on this site can measure.
Eight of the forty-two publish a maximum withdrawal, and the spread between them makes the point that a ceiling is a design decision rather than an industry norm: Rocketpot at 5,000 a month, Mirax at 10,000 a week, Wild Fortune at 15,000 a month, Bitdreams at 20,000 a month, CryptoLeo at 50,000 a month, Wild.io at 100,000 a week and Bitcasino.io at 1,000,000 a week. Thirty-four publish none.
What this page will not tell you
It will not tell you which site pays fastest, because nothing here was tested with money. No deposit was made, no withdrawal was timed and no support desk was contacted, at Rollbit or at any brand in the table. Every speed claim you read on comparison sites in this industry is either somebody's real test or somebody's invention, and this site is not in a position to offer the first, so it offers neither.
It will not tell you whether playing at any of these is lawful where you are. That depends on your own jurisdiction, changes, and is a question for a qualified adviser rather than a comparison table.
And it will not read a blank cell as a finding. A brand with no published coin list has not been shown to refuse crypto; a brand with no published ceiling has not been shown to have none. The table records what documents say, as does the front-page comparison of Rollbit alternatives, and where a document says nothing the table says so.
Questions people actually ask
- What actually makes a site like Rollbit?
On this page, one thing only: it operates in the same market and publishes enough about itself to be compared field by field. Rollbit's own combination of casino, sportsbook and trading-style products is not reproduced by any of the ten, and no page here claims otherwise.
- Why are so many cells blank?
Because the operator does not publish the figure, or we have not read the document that carries it. Nineteen of the forty-two publish no cashier list we could read and nineteen no studio list. A blank never means zero.
- Is Rollbit itself in the ranked table?
No. Rollbit is the subject of the comparison rather than an entry in it, and its site could not be read, so it would sit at the bottom of a ranking that measures disclosure — which would say more about our access than about the operator.